The Hearing Officer dealt first with the objection under Section 60. There was no dispute that a predecessor of the applicant company had acted as a distributor of the opponent’s goods in the UK between 1982 and 1984 but since that time no company associated or connected with the applicant had been an agent of the opponent. A period of fourteen years, therefore, had passed between then and the date of application. In the light of that, the Hearing Officer considered that a claim under Section 60 must fail. Having so decided, the Hearing Officer felt he did not need to consider the 'trickey issue' of whether the applicant company could in fact be held to have been an agent, when that position had in fact been occupied by another, connected, company.

The Hearing Officer then addressed the allegation of bad faith under Section 3(6). After a careful review of the relevant history and present situation, the Hearing Officer concluded that the allegation of bad faith could not be sustained.

Finally, the Hearing Officer turned to a consideration of the matter under Section 5(2)(b). From this he concluded that the marks were similar and some of the goods were identical or similar. A likelihood of confusion existed and the Section 5(2)(b) opposition succeeded in respect of some of the goods in Classes 20 and 21.